ghl_project_update_task_comment

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds genuinely non-inferable behavior: the author-only 403 auth constraint, the `{ "comment": { … } }` response envelope, the required v3 version header, and the OAuth scope. It does not contradict any annotation. It stops short of stating what happens to `mentionedUserIds` when omitted or whether the old body is replaced wholesale.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Roughly two-thirds of the text is shared boilerplate irrelevant to updating a comment: space/folder/list hierarchy, lexorank `position`, recurring-task field naming, updatedAt search sorting, and delete cascades. The tool-specific content (auth, response, endpoint, scope) is compressed into two lines at the end rather than front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 4-parameter PATCH with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the essential invocation facts are all present: author-only restriction, endpoint and version header, scope, and response envelope. What is missing is partial-vs-full update semantics for the body, which matters for a mutation with destructiveHint=false.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so taskId, commentId, locationId and the nested body/mentionedUserIds are all documented in the schema, including examples and the locationId channel caveat. The description echoes the TipTap body and mentionedUserIds semantics but adds no syntax or behavioral detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The operative sentence is specific: 'Update A Comment — Updates TipTap `body` and, when sent, `mentionedUserIds`', and it names the PATCH endpoint with taskId/commentId. It is clearly distinguishable from the create/delete/list comment siblings. The only drag is that the actual purpose is buried beneath a generic API-hierarchy preamble rather than front-loaded.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a real precondition — '403 unless the caller is the comment author' — which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never states when to choose this over ghl_project_create_task_comment or ghl_project_delete_task_comment, nor whether omitted fields are preserved or cleared. Usage is implied by the name and endpoint only.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.